Kendinya Hall v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00123-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000089135]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6172]

Appeal: 17-6172

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6172

KENDINYA HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00123-REP-RCY)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendinya Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6172

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kendinya Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that
the petition be dismissed as time-barred and advised Hall that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order
based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the
parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hall has
waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

2